Johns Hopkins study: "Lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

It's fascinating how sheep believe the proven liars AKA politicians and the mainstream media. Think how illogical it is to actually believe pathological liars. My gosh. Or perhaps they're just too lazy and confused to make their own decisions. One or the other. Jesus Christ.

Don't listen to economists, listen to virologists.

I wanted to eventually go to Australia and New Zealand. That will NEVER happen now. No way will I travel to countries that impose snap lockdowns that freeze everyone in their current locations. Imagine being far from home and suddenly the government of that place says NOBODY MOVE. EVERYBODY STAY WHERE YOU ARE.

At the very beginning of the pandemic Johns Hopkins had a video showing how a lockdown would flatten the curve.

DanM wrote:

I wanted to eventually go to Australia and New Zealand. That will NEVER happen now. No way will I travel to countries that impose snap lockdowns that freeze everyone in their current locations. Imagine being far from home and suddenly the government of that place says NOBODY MOVE. EVERYBODY STAY WHERE YOU ARE.

LOL!

I’m sure they’re absolutely DEVASTATED over that Dan, devastated!

Have to at least give you credit for posting a seemingly credible study for once and not distorting or gaslighting the crap out of it.

DanM wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/lockdowns-reduced-covid-19-mortality-by-2-study-finds-lockdowns-should-be-rejected-out-of-hand

The researchers – Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen's Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby – analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths.

"We find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates," the researchers wrote.

Aren’t they saying mortality rates? How about overall infection rates which effects the capacity of the health care system ?

Many of the mandates were imposed AFTER most of the very vulnerable (elderly) population was already sickened.

Mask certainly slow the spread and lessen the wave

Hmmm, This seems to be well researched. I may change my mind that Covid didn't start in a a Wuhan research lab.

antivaxxers killing-democracy wrote:

DanM wrote:

I wanted to eventually go to Australia and New Zealand. That will NEVER happen now. No way will I travel to countries that impose snap lockdowns that freeze everyone in their current locations. Imagine being far from home and suddenly the government of that place says NOBODY MOVE. EVERYBODY STAY WHERE YOU ARE.

LOL!

I’m sure they’re absolutely DEVASTATED over that Dan, devastated!

Have to at least give you credit for posting a seemingly credible study for once and not distorting or gaslighting the crap out of it.

Funny how you avoid talking about the thread's subject. It is people like you who are responsible for the catastrophic effects of lockdowns.

Epidemiologists struggle to model death-policies links with actual data - good luck building a reliable counterfactual. This smells of BS. Also, say that to the 100,000 NZers who didn't die in COVID.

So "lockdowns" as defined by things that are not actually lockdowns had a small effect, but actual lockdowns ("shelter in place") had a 5% effect, and closing non-essential businesses had a 10% effect.

Pretty funny spin on data that shows lockdowns worked really well. I guess they rightly assumed that no one would read beyond the headline.

Ho Hum wrote:

So "lockdowns" as defined by things that are not actually lockdowns had a small effect, but actual lockdowns ("shelter in place") had a 5% effect, and closing non-essential businesses had a 10% effect.

Pretty funny spin on data that shows lockdowns worked really well. I guess they rightly assumed that no one would read beyond the headline.

This has been the problem since the beginning of the pandemic. Early on in the US, when "lockdowns" went into place, virtually every jurisdiction in the US had adopted lockdown rules that were very similarly drafted (state attorney generals often share drafts of legislation/regulations with each other). The rule would say that everything needed to close except for essential services. Then, the definition of "essential services" would be several pages long and include everything from coffee shops to car dealers. The next problem was the timing of the "lockdowns". Repeatedly in both the US and the EU, political pressure would mount and lockdowns would end too early and be implemented too late. So, the study is just telling us something that is pretty obvious. When you do a lousy job of implementing public health measures to stop transmission of COVID, you get pretty lousy results.

coach wrote:

At the very beginning of the pandemic Johns Hopkins had a video showing how a lockdown would flatten the curve.

We're still waiting to flatten that curve. Only mentally weak individuals believed that a lock down was a solution. It never made sense but was policy pushed by MSM and swallowed up by citizens who embraced fear over common sense. Congratulations, now the "experts" tell us it caused more harm than good.

This study was conducted by economics professors, not public health experts.

There have been no 'lockdowns' in the US since May of 2020. In fact, there weren't even lockdowns in the US BEFORE May 2020.

You guys just don't like going outside of your basement and think you can blame the government.

We see right through this.

Ho Hum wrote:

So "lockdowns" as defined by things that are not actually lockdowns had a small effect, but actual lockdowns ("shelter in place") had a 5% effect, and closing non-essential businesses had a 10% effect.

Pretty funny spin on data that shows lockdowns worked really well. I guess they rightly assumed that no one would read beyond the headline.

So lockdowns work, we just wanted to get a lot of hits on our paper from frothy COVID-deniers, so we put out some press releases to make them get all frantic.

COVID deniers and antivaxxers are biggest rubes in the world. They'll slobber all over anything that remotely supports their insane, moronic priors.

DanM wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/lockdowns-reduced-covid-19-mortality-by-2-study-finds-lockdowns-should-be-rejected-out-of-hand

The researchers – Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen's Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby – analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths.

"We find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates," the researchers wrote.

Not peer reviewed and authored by an economist based on reviewing other literature. As a lawyer I can assure you that if you tried to introduce this study as expert testimony in court, a simple objection from you opponent would result in it being excluded.

Johns Hopkins Study Finds Lockdown/Masks Had Near No Effect On COVID Mortality & Flu Vanishes Again.

No flu again!

Got to get those Covid cases from somewhere

hunter wheres the coke wrote:

This study was conducted by economics professors, not public health experts.

Economists study data, that is what they excel at. So the idea that the study is bunk because of that is false. For example the public health expert in charge of LA has her degree in social welfare. A good economist is way more qualified to analyze the impact of the Covide measures than someone with a liberal arts degree. And a virologist may know a lot about viruses but not be good at all when evaluating data and there is a lot of data to go through.

I do not know of two of the authors of the study, but Hanke is one of the most respected and accomplished economists in the world. I highly doubt he is publishing something that has not been vetted by experts in a range of fields.